Its still ahrd to imagine the bill passing in the end. David Brooks yesterday outlined all the fiscal scams in the bill. Some 80% of Americans believe the bill will will cost a lot more than claimed.

How is it that a bill that is supposed to reduce costs, costs itself $1 trillion every 6 years?

Moreover, if the bill is deficit neutral - meaning it is covered by new taxes, what taxes are we going to raise to pay off the rest of the debt? America has a serious spending problem. $1 trillion more in spending is not the solution.

If you want to see why making health care public is a terrible idea, see yesterday's Gabourey Sidibe comments. The same nagging nannies that preach and hector people over their personal decisions today will have the power to forcibly regulate those decisions should this terrible bill pass. And all those hectoring nannies will now have the justification to force you to live how they want you to live because "we're paying for your lifestyle choices through national health care!"

The oft-used Cold War era retort of "if you have nothing to hide, why are you worried" simply doesn't hold water anymore. The only people I still hear use that phrase are Boomers or older. Everyone else seems to understand that the government is not always in the hands of benevolent people with everyone's best interests superior to their own.

The damage this bill has done and will do to our political process is far larger than any perceived savings (highly dubious) or people helped. I'm with the crowd that says there are a number of smaller, inexpensive things that can be done, right now, with large bipartisan support (portability, interstate competition, tort reform) that should be given a chance while the feds concentrate on jobs and debt.

The UK sucks. Look up ASBO, and marvel at how pervasive they are. Her majesty's government is free to practice prior restraint -- an issue of Granta magazine from several years ago arrived with most of one article blacked out, to show the extent of the government's censorship. Tax money supports religious schools. Guns (except single shot and double barrel shotguns) were confiscated from the entire population, in the wake of a school shooting committed by a frustrated paedophile -- as if every gunowner was a potential mass murderer. (Confiscation was easy because every firearm had received police approval to own. They were just checked against the government's list as they were turned in.) Some did ship their guns to France, the land of the (relatively) free.

In fact, France is a better guardian of civil liberties on every point.

I think it says a lot about Obama when his party overwhelmingly controls the House, has a 59 member majority in the Senate and still can't scrape up enough votes among his own party members but he's going forward with this debacle anyway despite polls showing majority of the people don't want the bill.

Maybe he thinks the whole representative republic concept is flawed like the Constitution.

I predict the bill will pass with a few votes to spare. Obama's most dominant trait is his compulsive arrogance. In his mind, Obama knows what is best and he will get his bill but he will destroy the Dems and himself in the process.

Speaking of this, it seems like it used to be that if you got the conflicting edits error, you were SOL unless you did a copy of your text before hitting publish (which I got into the habit of doing on long comments...not that I ever do that...lol).

Now, I can confirm that if you do get that error, your comment will still eventually appear.

Allen S -- no, the comment page just hung as if I hadn't pushed "Publish" at all. So I pushed it again. Then it told me I had typed the wrong vw, so I entered the new one and pushed "Publish" for the third time.

Well during WW2 the Soviets used penal battalions to punch through very hard to take German positions and to clear minefields. I guess we'll find out who the Penal Democrats are in November.Ahh, but the Iranians used children to clear minefields. As far as the Democrats are concerned, we are all children.

What more do we need to see from this Administration. It's like a dystopian novel meets an off-Broadway farce. After pledging to "drain the swamp" Nancy and Co. are openly engaging in swapping money/special treatment for votes in a way that flies in the face of just about every "ethics regulation" in the real world. (Lovely how the people who make the laws so often end up exempt from them, isn't it?) Then, the same bunch of bozos literally declares "the truth is a virus" with their ham-handed effort at blocking Senators from reading the Drudge Report. And the "mainstream" media ignores it! Classic stuff.

Then, the same bunch of bozos literally declares "the truth is a virus" with their ham-handed effort at blocking Senators from reading the Drudge Report. And the "mainstream" media ignores it! Classic stuff.

Again, another "amateur hour" for those currently holding the reins. Ham-handed indeed.

What was far more interesting, though, was the number of hits per day from the IP's at 1600 Penn Ave. LOL

Re "draining the swamp"....did any commentor on this blog actually think Ms Pelosi was serious?

If so, you need to respond to the Nigerian dude who keeps asking you for money.

As Fred said above--if the dems had the votes they would have passed it along time ago--the closer november comes, the less votes they will have--the end game is apparently some anal fetish the MSM has.

The most cynical thing about health care is this belief by Democrats that the "people" will like it once they see it working.

What if people do not see it working? what if people start reading about or experience how premiums went up, or how their insurance got switched, or how seniors lost their Medicaid D. It will all go back to the Democrats for passing a totally partisan bill. Their electoral defeat from it could be unprecedented.

Well garage, it remains to be seen whether it will be Obama's Gotterdameruung or the Relief of Vienna.

But the point of the analogy which you miss (no big surprise there) is that Obama and Pelosi seem to have little qualms in sacrificing some Democratic seats, if not their majority for their 'vision' of universal health care.

I never took her serious. I used to think her wide eyed look during press conferences was the classic deer in the headlights of the dazed and confused but I'm thinking that's just the Botox that has frozen her brow in place.

Well she shouldn't with a 78 member majority don't you think? Christ garage, you guys owned the Congress and now 14 months later and you guys are still dicking around with this stupid bill.

You might want to consider the very real possibility of a major electiral backlash if Pelosi 'wins' this one garage. The polls certainly don't favor your side. My penal battalion analogy was apt I think but perhaps a better one is King Pyrrhus of Epirus who after defeating Rome at Heraclea said; One more victory like this and we shall lose.

Lets see if it passes and then how many of your beloved progressives are still in office come November. I'll be curious if you'll have the balls to wipe some of that smugness from your face.

Yea I'm sure your concern for Democrats is as pure as driven snow. "Think of the progressives!"

What you're actually afraid of is the health bills passing with zero support from Republicans, isn't it. Millions and millions of people will be thanking Democrats. I don't blame you for feeling left in the dust.

what if people start reading about or experience how premiums went up, or how their insurance got switched

In California, Anthem Blue Cross just raised premiums up to 39%, and the Brown and Toland Medical Group just dropped the UCSF physicians (meaning if you liked your UCSF doctor you have to change HMOs). So post-reform health care would have to be pretty damn bad to be worse than the status quo.

Yea I'm sure your concern for Democrats is as pure as driven snow. "Think of the progressives!"

I have no concern for progressives. Could care less about them actually.

What you're actually afraid of is the health bills passing with zero support from Republicans, isn't it. Millions and millions of people will be thanking Democrats. I don't blame you for feeling left in the dust.

You know garage, I used to just joke that you live in a parallel universe, now I'm convinced of it. Every poll I have seen show majority of Americans opposed to the plan, Pelosi struggling to find enough votes in her own 78 member majority and The Won has been in campiagn mode for over a year trying to sell this POS. If this was supposed to be such a boon for the nation, it would have been passed a long time ago.

Hopefully for you if it does pass, it has good mental health benefits you can utilize.

As Fred said above--if the dems had the votes they would have passed it along time ago--the closer november comes, the less votes they will have--the end game is apparently some anal fetish the MSM has.

My concern is what the lame duck Dems will pass between November and January?

WV: squinges; the involutary act most people do when they first hear about the Health Care Bill

"So post-reform health care would have to be pretty damn bad to be worse than the status quo."

With the government in charge, that's still a slam dunk - just look at the British healthcare horror stories that pop up almost daily.

"Actually "Wrangle" was the result of Pelosi's ethics and lobby laws she enacted first thing in 2007."

That's funny, because Pelosi couldn't even answer the press after her last meeting with Rangel as to whether he was removed as Ways & Means chair.

And "Cold Cash" Jefferson had to lose an election to lose his committee spots. Yeah, most ethical Congress evah (just ignore all the bribing and horse-trading behind closed doors, and all the crooks they don't punish).

So post-reform health care would have to be pretty damn bad to be worse than the status quo.

And while past performance is not indicative of future results, generally when the State sticks its nose in the mix it usually does get worse.

Taxes are obviously going to have to be increased substantially, not just to pay for this debacle (should it pass) but for the rest of Obama's spending spree. The idea this increase will be confined to the 'rich' is laughable. The difference between Anthem and Obama is Obama won't have you imprisoned for refusing to pay his 'premium increase'.

Then you have the ever increasing number of physicians refusing to take Medicare patients. Hard to think this can be avoided in the future unless reimbursement rates are increased (translation: Raise Medicare payroll tax).

The Democrat Mafioso has plenty of big agenda items ready to vote for in DC including an Energy Usage Tax to pay their friends to build worthless Wind Mills and stop dead our coal, oil amd gas production. The Fishing ban is ready for sneaking through.The focus on this losing Health Plan attempt may be their best smoke screen to get that other damage inflicted upon their enemy: the American people.

Which is why they violate Muslim civil rights to wear head scarves in school? Are you for real FLS?

I'm not sure about this, but I'm betting they have a similar ban on wearing swastikas too. This is where individual liberty runs smack up against survival and the reason we cannot never have zero government. The trick is finding that sweet spot.

In like fashion, I'm 100% behind the Swiss banning the construction of minarets. I used to be on the objective "freedom of religion" thing too, but the more I study the history between the West and Islam, the more it becomes clear that its not just a religion, but a political ideology.

Every poll I have seen show majority of Americans opposed to the plan, Pelosi struggling to find enough votes in her own 78 member majority and The Won has been in campiagn mode for over a year trying to sell this POS.

And here is the reality. A good majority in there would never favor anything a Democrat is proposing, or vote for them anyway. And once people are polled on individual parts of the plan like ending discriminatory pre-existing conditions that take effect immediately, the support spikes. You think the millions in this country with a pre existing condition won't appreciate that? Non hard core Republicans anyway.

"What you're actually afraid of is the health bills passing with zero support from Republicans, isn't it."

Well, I am afraid of this bill passing, though I could care less about republicans.

"Millions and millions of people will be thanking Democrats. I don't blame you for feeling left in the dust."

You don't work in healthcare. I do. I have plenty of experience with government run healthcare. I did some training at a VA. I get checks from government run health care institutions every week.

I was one of the few American psychologists who took some of them, as of this year, they paid so little and took so long to pay me that I basically fired them.

So now my area has no American psychologists who take Medicare and Medicaid.

None.

That is exactly what will happen if this crap is implemented. Wealthy people will still have excellent health care, and the poor and middle class will have much less in terms of options and experienced health care providers.

What you're actually afraid of is the health bills passing with zero support from Republicans, isn't it. Millions and millions of people will be thanking Democrats. I don't blame you for feeling left in the dust.

Haha, that's a good one. I'm guessing that when the public gets around to noticing that taxes and costs will go up and up for four years before any benefits accrue, they'll be "thanking" the Democrats plenty. Four years is a long time in national politics--it will be interesting to see just how small a minority party the Democrats can become by 2014.

And here is the reality. A good majority in there would never favor anything a Democrat is proposing, or vote for them anyway.

Ok so you show a chart compiling all the polls taken over time on HCR that show more are opposed than favor and that supports your argument how? And how exactly do you know that the majority in there would never favor what a Democrat proposes anyway? You have evidence for that or did you just pull it out of your ass like usual?

And once people are polled on individual parts of the plan like ending discriminatory pre-existing conditions that take effect immediately, the support spikes.

Well no shit sherlock. If I could forego having to pay homeowners and car insurance right up to the point my house burns down or someone someone plows into my car I would cheerfully support that too.

You think the millions in this country with a pre existing condition won't appreciate that? Non hard core Republicans anyway

Oh I'm sure they would. That's the thing garage, if it was just about insuring the uninsured there is little doubt a bi-partisan bill could have been reached. But no, ideologues like you aren't happy unless the State runs the whole damn thing. Yes all those pre-existing folks will be very happy while the rest of us drown having to pay higher premiums and higher taxes to cover their costs.

The problem is garage is that politicians vote the way their constituencies want them to, especially on items that directly effect their lives. The fact that Botox has to scurry around scrounge up enough votes with her, did I mention she had a 78 member majority...woops I mean 77 now that the groper (D-NY) is leaving, tends to make one think there isn't as much gung ho support as you want there to be.

The problem is garage is that politicians vote the way their constituencies want them to, especially on items that directly effect their lives

Oh Jesus. Show me any poll with the question " do you favor a medicare type public option choice" that doesn't get at least 60% in favor. Then show me the politicians that reflect that in the way they vote.

Colonel Sam Flagg was played by Ed Winter, a much-seen actor in the 70s and 80s.

garage mahal said...

So dazed and confused she hasn't lost a fight yet. Haha.

With an 80 seat majority, you'd think she shouldn't have to fight at all. Clearly, she's not exactly Sam Rayburn.

Hohoho.

And here is the reality. A good majority in there would never favor anything a Democrat is proposing, or vote for them anyway. And once people are polled on individual parts of the plan like ending discriminatory pre-existing conditions that take effect immediately, the support spikes. You think the millions in this country with a pre existing condition won't appreciate that? Non hard core Republicans anyway.

Well, I have a pre-existing condition (Cushing's) and I don't want it. The support is only for limited, specific reforms, such as the ones the Republicans propose - not for a government takeover and that is why three quarters of the people don't support it.

As to why insurance companies don't touch pre-existing conditions, the latest outrage (or oppressed minority) for which the Demos bleed all over the floor, until they can't wring any more votes out of it, the best analogy I ever heard was a guy walking into an insurance agency and wanting to insure a car he'd totaled the week before.

You say a "good majority in there would never favor anything a Democrat is proposing, or vote for them anyway.". could that be because the Demos have blown people's trust with all their lies, broken promises and crooked deals?

Oh Jesus. Show me any poll with the question " do you favor a medicare type public option choice" that doesn't get at least 60% in favor. Then show me the politicians that reflect that in the way they vote.

Thank you garage for thinking that I am the Son of God.

Actually why don't you show me the poll? Seems to me when the public option was on the table pols were running for cover from very pissed off town hall folks. Its possible that enough people see that Medicare itself is insolvency in less than a decade without massive tax increases so perhaps faith in the nanny state is waning a bit.

Seriously garage, where are the millions and millions of people who need Obamacare and why are they not marching in the streets like the Teabaggers are? Again, if this was such a boon, why is Botox scrambling to secure enough Democratic votes from her...did I mention.... the 77 member majority?

The House is going to change hands in November-that's a given-with or without this bill's passage Nancy's ship is going down.

The House is getting a new captain and changing hands, Nancy will not be able to keep any promises, however there is one big exception.

The trail balloons being sent up now by House members declaring themselves to be recently undecided-

let's put it this way Nancy is out of carrots and all she has left is sticks.

Massa was beaten up early as an example.

Now the other members sending up trial balloons are looking for what arrows Nancy has. Dirt-that's about all she has left.

Two things are encouraging Steny Hoyer is pushing back on the March 18th deadline and Paul Ryan said that he was told to be ready for the reconciliation to hit his committee on Wednesday. If he meant this Wednesday-and this gets past today without much action-that's a good sign. A big "if" would be if he was told the real timeline.

Your poll is your own wavering House Democrats-they know their districts-that's how they got there.

You know, I don't know how much clearer it has to be for the guy. I mean it wasn't that long ago he and the rest of the liberals were singing and dancing like it was Paris, 1944 and now 14 months later they're pissing and moaning so much I had to check and see if Bush and Cheney staged a coup.

What is it with liberals? You give them the keys to the house, the car and they still whine like babies. Man up already.

And once people are polled on individual parts of the plan like ending discriminatory pre-existing conditions that take effect immediately, the support spikes. You think the millions in this country with a pre existing condition won't appreciate that? Non hard core Republicans anyway.

Except these supposed polls only ask the questions concerning the benefits, they never include the costs as part of the poll. Obamacare includes the cost which is why its opposed. If you asked wouldn't it be great to force insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions if everyone's premiums doubled, what support would that get?

The House is going to change hands in November-that's a given-with or without this bill's passage Nancy's ship is going down.

So 40 seats huh? Sure about that? You guys peaked way too soon. The fatal flaw was throwing everything completely into hoping the economy would still be in the tank, when in reality it never had anywhere to go, but up. Iron Nancy's shirt, bizzatch!

Hmmm... garage did you see the part about Dem vs GOP enthusiasm about voting? Might want to consider that before polishing your laurels there Chumley.

You guys peaked way too soon. The fatal flaw was throwing everything completely into hoping the economy would still be in the tank, when in reality it never had anywhere to go, but up.

I really hope the economy does go back up and unemployment goes back down. Unfortunately, the jobs numbers aren't exactly in your side's favor. Maybe that will change between now and November. Hopefully for the country it will if Bambi can get off his butt and concentrate on jobs rather than demagouging Anthem.

Seriously garage, where are the millions and millions of people who need Obamacare ...

They're babysitting the children, cleaning the house, and mowing the lawns for the limousine liberals and country club Republicans. The idea being that the rest of us can pay for the healthcare for the people who serve the affluent.

They don't have time to go demonstrating because the people they work for pay sub-minimum wage, along with no health benefits, so they have to work very long hours.

"Seriously garage, where are the millions and millions of people who need Obamacare ..."

Well, you can start with the poor, move into the middle-class, then, because of the current recession, bring in many who thought they were in good shape and were always going to have insurance provided by their employer.

You could have made that comment without the last sentence it would have stood up just fine on its own. A point of view worthy of debate. Instead, as always, you descend down into Springerville and throw chairs at people for no reason.

And you STILL haven't provided citations or sources backing up your claim Obama is more effective at killing Taliban in one year than the entire eight of Bush's administration. Even after being provided with sources that completely refuted your claim. You just ignored it.

Citing your own bad behavior by pointing to others is a sign of immaturity. Long suspected in your case, but confirmed the more comments you make.

Still ignoring throwing out complete BS regarding the Taliban kills even after being shown it was BS? Why?

The use of "hate" was a quote and it was in quotes. Fine. I'll agree it's overused. How about we agree that ad hominem appears to be your favorite way of making a point. What it clearly shows when you deride someone like that, for example, "drivel", you are automatically casting yourself as the superior person, which is both immature and tiresome.

I'm not railing against that in any case. I'm railing against your repeated, lo these many moons, throwing out BS and rarely sourcing it if challenged.

For my own part, I almost always refer to the president by President Obama out of respect. If you don't believe me, search it. Sure, I've slipped here and there, but I'm not a serial offender by any means. It's just as bad when others do it, regardless of which end of the spectrum they're on and I've said so, repeatedly. Are there people here that hate the President? Surely. Do I count myself among them? Nope. I will go so far as to say I hate his policies and bought Ford specifically because of that. I'll further admit that I have a knee-jerk hatred of Hillary Clinton and pretty much everything about her. But I always offer that disclaimer before making a comment about her.

I did answer your question on Bush and Iraq. I said it was handled poorly (horribly, I think is what I said) and I left the GOP over that, his spending, and using gay marriage to get re-elected. I don't suppose any of that matters to you, though. In fact, I'm pretty sure I've mentioned all of that before.

FLS, I note you left off "almost entirely due to California state mandates." Was it an error of deliberate omission or of ignorance?

Not an error at all, as "California state mandates" were not changed. Moreover, Anthem does not allege that they were. Where did you get the idea that they were relevant?

Anthem's excuse is that the economic downturn has caused too many healthy policy holders to drop coverage. Coupled with rising medical costs, the combination of less money coming in with more money going out means they have to charge their remaining policy holders more.

Of course, substantial increases will motivate the remaining relatively healthy people to drop coverage, which will increase the gap between income and outgo, making further increases necessary.

Scott M said..."Citing your own bad behavior by pointing to others is a sign of immaturity."

My "bad behavior?"

Who the hell are you to be throwing out such ridiculous bullshit?

This is a blog site ththat may not be what you want to hear, or how you want to hear it, but it's a free and open format so do what I've proposed time and again: If you don't like what I say or how I say it...don't read it.

As for "pointing to others," that was said in relation to your inane usage of the word "hate" to describe my attitude and comments towards other people posting comments. I don't "hate" anybody here...I don't "know" anybody here.

And so you change companies, which is exactly what my company did with them last year. We have 100% coverage, pick your own doctor with $10 copays (an incredible cadillac plan) for $263/Month, and we are a small group.

When the feds run it, there will be no where to go, and costs will be determined by the level of pay and benefits demanded by the government workers which will be substantially higher than the insurance company employees currently get, plus the profit to the stockholders.

I guarantee that any government plan will cost more than that and if this passes, rate increases will be even higher when mandates are added.

I love my health care. It has already saved my life twice at great expense to them and still cost me around $3,000 per year. I can get into see my doctor in a day, an MRI in a week and surgery in 2 weeks. The Feds will never do that.

There are a lot of people like me out here, we just don't get in the press, that's only for sob stories. Which WILL be us after this passes.

Scott - "I will go so far as to say I hate his policies and bought Ford specifically because of that. I'll further admit that I have a knee-jerk hatred of Hillary Clinton and pretty much everything about her."

You "hate" his policies? All of them? He's done nothing so far that you don't "hate?"

And you "have a knee-jerk hatred of Hillary Clinton and pretty much everything about her."

Everything? Does this include her speech? Appearance? Policies? Husband? Chelsea?

You continue to post comments that identify you as just another wing nut who doesn't have the balls to admit what you are.

Scott - I realize you're having some problems with my comments, but at this stage I would think even you would understand that I represent one of the very few counters to the right wing garbage that's spewed forth on this site on a daily basis.

It's hard to agree with people who think everything the President does is wrong, or that people should just pull themselves up by their bootstraps or relish opinions offered by Matt Drudge, Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck.

I've said it before and will say it again: President Obama has been in office for a little over a year, inherited one hell of an economic crisis, two wars and to be constantly whining and bitching about his every move, as if he should have everything in order by now...is unpatriotic, American and unfair.

You continue to post comments that identify you as just another wing nut who doesn't have the balls to admit what you are.

Ah. And you're a completely rational, unaligned pragmatist who just can't understand what all the fuss is about? Why do you keep reading if it's gutless and makes you sick?

You "hate" his policies? All of them? He's done nothing so far that you don't "hate?"

No. Not all of them. Not by any means. Why would assume so? There have been many discussions here where I've given him credit where credit is due. I'll give you another one...I hate the way the Democrats are going about this political romper room and gaming the numbers they expect the CBO to score. Does that rise to your level of being able to "hate" something?

Hillary is a vile political opportunist who has on far too many occasions proved she only cares about power, not what's necessarily good for the country.

Scott - I realize you're having some problems with my comments, but at this stage I would think even you would understand that I represent one of the very few counters to the right wing garbage that's spewed forth on this site on a daily basis.

Sure. You're in the minority here. Why does it have to constantly be coming out of the corner swinging. There are plenty of moderate conservatives here who are willing to debate things rationally. The problem is that you always start from "you suck, you're an idiot, and here's why".

It's hard to agree with people who think everything the President does is wrong, or that people should just pull themselves up by their bootstraps or relish opinions offered by Matt Drudge, Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck.

Since it' just us going back and forth on this, I have no idea how you can attribute that to me. If it's to the wider population of this blog in general, fine, but who says you have to AGREE with them? Crack and I see eye to eye on a lot of things, but we're fervently disagreeing on something on a different thread. It hasn't devolved into bullshit name calling and it certainly didn't start with one of us thrashing the other for no other reason than we disagreed.

I've said it before and will say it again: President Obama has been in office for a little over a year, inherited one hell of an economic crisis, two wars and to be constantly whining and bitching about his every move, as if he should have everything in order by now...is unpatriotic, American and unfair.

First and foremost, the opposition, regardless of side, will always bitch about a president's every move. To think otherwise is to reject reality and human nature. Second, it's unfair to automatically assume that criticism of the President = support for Bush or any other Republican president. This we've butted heads over constantly because you do it constantly and then refuse to listen to the reasons why those two things aren't always hand-in-hand, if ever, in my case.

And I suppose you think McCain, choosing Princess Sarah as his running mate was done because he felt she represented the very best for the "country?"

How about the GOP voting no on every measure offered by President Obama? They're doing it, based purely on the basis of what they feel is best for the "country?"

Or how about the 225 appointees that are still in limbo because the GOP is holding up their confirmations? Best for the "country?"

There you are. You're not the intellectually honest, rational, above-the-fray type you think you are. I cited one specific example and owned up to it (Hillary). You go and make a bunch of random claims you think I must believe, that have no basis in anything I've said. Since it doesn't fit into your I-hate-all-conservatives narrative, it must not compute.

Good luck with that. And while you're casting wide nets, make sure you include yourself and all of the ideologues on the left, just as plentiful, who you failed to list there.

Scott - "There are plenty of moderate conservatives here who are willing to debate things rationally."

Right.

Care to run their names down...?

Scott - "First and foremost, the opposition, regardless of side, will always bitch about a president's every move. To think otherwise is to reject reality and human nature."

Not like this. G.W., even without 9/11 enjoyed support on almost every front, and certainly didn't find literally every appointee being held up or a straight "no" vote on everything he proposed (Although you notice he did use that nasty reconciliation to push his two big tax cuts through...as did other Presidents on issues relating to welfare reform, etc...so why all the fuss from the GOP now?)

Obstructionism...the ONLY way the GOP sees as a strategy to regain the majority.

And I love all the talk about how the Democrats have the majory (what? one vote over the line?)...while the Republicans held it for 12 of the last 14 years, along with the White House for 7 of the last 8 years.

I sort of thought my point was that I'm being asked to do with higher premiums (certainly, per Dick Durbin), reduced access to healthcare providers when I go to retire (the probable impact of reductions in Medicare reimbursements in the Senate bill), coupled with the very real likelihood of Carter-esque inflation in the latter years of this decade thanks to runaway deficits. All of that so that limousine liberals like FLS and Jeremy don't have to pay a living wage or provide health coverage to the undocumented aliens who mow their lawns, clean their houses, change their babies' diapers, etc.

I think I have a right to object.

FWIW, I don't think any of the conservative commentators that regularly join threads on the Althouse blog are country-club Republcans. I'm certainly not.

The one you are exchanging comments with has no interest in finding common ground with you or anyone to the right of FLS. He doesn't acknowledge facts, and he greets inconvenient facts with bile and more made-up "facts."

Garage, when we aren't talking healthcare, and Beth, sometimes, are liberals with whom one can sometimes engage. The others? As the Christians say, not a prayer.

Wellpoint's rate hikes are the direct result of the Golden State's insurance regulations—the kind that Democrats want to impose on all 50 states. Under federal Cobra rules, the unemployed are allowed to keep their job-related health benefits for 18 to 36 months. California then goes further and bars Anthem from dropping these customers even after they have exhausted Cobra. California also caps what Anthem can charge these post-Cobra customers. Most other states direct these customers to high-risk pools that are partly subsidized, but California requires the individual market to absorb the customers and their costs. Even as California insurers have had to keep insuring these typically older and sicker patients, the recession has driven many younger, healthier policy holders to drop their insurance—leaving fewer customers to fund a more expensive insurance pool. This explains why Anthem lost $58 million in California on its post-Cobra customers in 2009. If WellPoint didn't raise premiums amid these losses, it would soon be under assault from its shareholders, if not out of business.

Anthem's excuse is that the economic downturn has caused too many healthy policy holders to drop coverage. Coupled with rising medical costs, the combination of less money coming in with more money going out means they have to charge their remaining policy holders more.

You make my point without realing it - let me make clear that I never implied the state mandates had changed.

In a more sane regulatory environment, as an alternative to Anthem raising prices 39%, they could adjust coverages to maintain cost, or balance increased costs with reducing non-catastrophic coverages. They can't in CA.

rocketeer now suggests that rate hikes could be obviated if policyholder would only agree to accept less coverage for the same premiums. Well, duh. This kind of sharp thinking brought us the 12 ounce "pound" of coffee and the 5 ounce (originally 6.5) can of tuna. The price hasn't changed, only the amount you receive in exchange.

rocketeer now suggests that rate hikes could be obviated if policyholder would only agree to accept less coverage for the same premiums. Well, duh.

No, FLS, what I'm saying is more nuanced. I'm saying rate hikes would be obviated if the state would allow policyholders and insurers to reach their own independent accomodation with respect to price and coverage. The state doesn't. It sticks it's damned nose in the middle of the transaction, dictating what will be covered without respect to whether it adds value in the poliyholders' eyes. California forces policyholders to pay for more than they need, and requires insurers to cover more than they should.

Every market transcation the government becomes involved in turns into a complete cockup, and ends with the government demanding the authority to fix the mess they've created.

But you know that, and you support it, so this is obviously a fruitless "conversation."